aaron.ballman added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19849#419752, @flx wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19849#419751, @aaron.ballman wrote: > > > I'm not opposed to showing the name, but I'm not certain I understand under > > what circumstances the name would be useful. Since this is triggering on > > move constructors, and move constructors can only have one parameter, the > > name seems wholly redundant, isn't it? > > > The case this is covering is when a value parameter can be moved, of which > there can be many. Ah, I think I was thrown by the fact that the only instance of the diagnostic was with a move constructor in a check called misc-move-constructor-init. :-P http://reviews.llvm.org/D19849 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
